On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 07:43:11AM -0700, Eric Peters wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nathan Scott" <nathans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2001 7:48 PM
> Subject: TAKE - getfacl/setfacl
> > On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 01:51:30PM +1000, Timothy Shimmin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are there any other utilities other than chacl for managing the ACLs?
> > > >
> > > Nathan Scott will soon check in ported versions of Andreas'
> > > setfacl and getfacl ACL commands.
> > > (Currently, you'll need to preserve an ACE ordering in ACL specification
> > > for setfacl; > however, I'll look into fixing this problem when the
> > > code is checked in).
> > >
> At the risk of sounding ignorant, what's the ACE ordering ;) The only thing
> that comes to mind is a programming library ACE, but I have a feeling that
> is not the same reference.
Sorry if my note was a bit cryptic.
Andreas' code keeps the ACEs (Access Control List Entries) of an ACL in
order sorted numerically by tag type (ACL_USER_OBJ, ACL_USER, ...).
This makes the access check algorithm simpler and potentially quicker.
The XFS ACL code do not keep the ACEs ordered - they are stored in the
order in which they are given.
Andreas' code, however, does _not_ require the ACEs to be ordered from
the user - unsurprisingly, his code sorts them.
However, in the port of setfacl and associated missing libacl functions,
it appears that something has gone wrong because unless the
ACEs are in the correct order when given as an argument to setfacl,
it gives an error message.